Low frequencies

[Native_bon]

Then no need to reproduce music at home then. So no point of being an audiophile then.

What you are trying to say here?

This is not an audiophile forum, simply because it is an established tenet of this forum that that if a system sounds right to you, then it is right. 

Accurate reproduction is not considered important as modern recordings are not 'real', so you can play them back as you see fit.

The OP, and many other posters on here complain about the inability of most budget and mid-fi systems to deliver the bass response that they want, so, from time to time I explain how this performance can be obtained at an affordable cost.

However these solutions do not involve products with the 'correct' branding, or the required 'bling' factor so are dismissed out of hand. Every other avenue is explored to give the required sound except the one that will actually work.

It is a case of a persons preconceptions and expectations being at odds with reality, it is called cognitive dissonance.

 

Well that's my point. Why do so many here say their systems are not coloured in any form. By the way, when quote me please quote the whole message. I did say at the end it will depend on how the music was mastered.

So let's not pretend our systems can reproduce everything and anything as regards playback.

 

[Cycleman]

guys the yamaha hs8 is not for hifi. Is for for throw distance....and is made for studio.thats for sure.Is about mixing and not for listening.

 

[Native_bon]

guys the yamaha hs8 is not for hifi. Is for for throw distance....and is made for studio.thats for sure.Is about mixing and not for listening.

There is no doubt the Yamaha is for mixing. Saying that it lacks bass is far from the fact. It has lots of it.

 

[BigH]

guys the yamaha hs8 is not for hifi. Is for for throw distance....and is made for studio.thats for sure.Is about mixing and not for listening.

And your speakers are for hifi?

What does hifi mean to you?

 

[Andrewjvt]

guys the yamaha hs8 is not for hifi. Is for for throw distance....and is made for studio.thats for sure.Is about mixing and not for listening.

Thats a new one.
Dont dismiss them just from what you read. I bet if someone blindfolded you and played them for you, youd buy them on the spot.

 

[davedotco]

Then no need to reproduce music at home then. So no point of being an audiophile then.

What you are trying to say here?

This is not an audiophile forum, simply because it is an established tenet of this forum that that if a system sounds right to you, then it is right.

Accurate reproduction is not considered important as modern recordings are not 'real', so you can play them back as you see fit.

The OP, and many other posters on here complain about the inability of most budget and mid-fi systems to deliver the bass response that they want, so, from time to time I explain how this performance can be obtained at an affordable cost.

However these solutions do not involve products with the 'correct' branding, or the required 'bling' factor so are dismissed out of hand. Every other avenue is explored to give the required sound except the one that will actually work.

It is a case of a persons preconceptions and expectations being at odds with reality, it is called cognitive dissonance.

Well that's my point. Why do so many here say their systems are not coloured in any form. By the way, when quote me please quote the whole message. I did say at the end it will depend on how the music was mastered.

So let's not pretend our systems can reproduce everything and anything as regards playback.

No, I quoted you in full, before you amended the post to make it a little clearer.

I am still somewhat at a loss to see what you are getting at.

For obvious reasons it is very difficult for most people to reproduce a real musical performance in the home. though I have on a number of occasions heard systems (and rooms) that get remarkably close.

However for many the replay of small scale acoustic recodings, ie real people, playing real instruments in a real acoustic can give you a very good idea of the veracity of the system.

But most, on here anyway, play recordings that are entirely 'constructed' in the studio so there is no 'original sound' to approach.

For that reason I accept the premiss that 'personal taste' is what drives enthusists forward, hence my comments on preconceptions and expectations. I have lived much of my working life surrounded by real musical instruments, everything from miking up a full orchestra to hearing the piano tuner at work on stage prior to soundcheck for a live gig.

So my 'preconceptions and expectations' are going to be very different to other peoples, I accept that so I try and offer advice based on what they say in their posts and tend to concetrate more on 'technical' and other matters of fact rather than discuss what other people do and do not 'like'.

 

[Native_bon]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

 

[davedotco]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

 

[Native_bon]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

 

[BigH]

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I was not asking you, it was clearly directed at the OP.

 

[Native_bon]

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I was not asking you, it was clearly directed at the OP.

*dirol*

 

[davedotco]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I though you were saying something I found interesting but wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at.

Apologies if my attempt at clarification came across more as an interrogation than was meant.

To answer the question aimed at bigH, my definition of hi-fi is a system that tries, within it's size and price constraints, to reproduce a musical event exactly as it happens.

Of course you have to know what that event sounds like in the first place........

Or more realistically know a little about how the instruments sound for real so that you have a reasonable basis for comparison.

 

[Native_bon]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I though you were saying something I found interesting but wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at.

Apologies if my attempt at clarification came across more as an interrogation than was meant.

To answer the question aimed at bigH, my definition of hi-fi is a system that tries, within it's size and price constraints, to reproduce a musical event exactly as it happens.

Of course you have to know what that event sounds like in the first place........

Or more realistically know a little about how the instruments sound for real so that you have a reasonable basis for comparison.

Exactly so dave. I listen to unamplified musical instruments all the time, & sometimes you can even get a different sound from the same instrument recorded in different rooms, not to talk of the same instrument recorded in the same room in different locations. One thing I have learnt with music is that, many systems can paint a picture of an instrument or performance in different ways.

My point was reviews can only guide you. Some reviews sound totally out of place when I hear exactly the same system in a demo. My interpretation of the review & or, the presentation of what pulls me into the music may be totally different from who gives the description of the system, & what they look for in jugding the system palatable to their ears.

 

[davedotco]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I though you were saying something I found interesting but wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at.

Apologies if my attempt at clarification came across more as an interrogation than was meant.

To answer the question aimed at bigH, my definition of hi-fi is a system that tries, within it's size and price constraints, to reproduce a musical event exactly as it happens.

Of course you have to know what that event sounds like in the first place........

Or more realistically know a little about how the instruments sound for real so that you have a reasonable basis for comparison.

Exactly so dave. I listen to unamplified musical instruments all the time, & sometimes you can even get a different sound from the same instrument recorded in different rooms, not to talk of the same instrument recorded in the same room in different locations. One thing I have learnt with music is that, many systems can paint a picture of an instrument or performance in different ways.

My point was reviews can only guide you. Some reviews sound totally out of place when I hear exactly the same system in a demo. My interpretation of the review & or, the presentation of what pulls me into the music may be totally different from who gives the description of the system, & what they look for in jugding the system palatable to their ears.

Reviews are simply another persons opinion, useless.

The only point to reviews being that well reviewed equipment is easier to move on when you discover that it is not all it is cracked up to be.

Real recordings of real instruments are pretty rare, pretty much non existant in the 'pop/rock, world so many entusiasts would simply not understand what we are talking about here, there simply is no reference on which people can make a meaningful evaluation.

Bringing this back on topic, I know from my experience, that even whilst avoiding obvious distortions or frequency response anomalies, speakers can be made to sound more impressive with some kinds of material than with others.

Knowing what is generally required for R&B and hi-hop, it is easy to suggest speakers that can handle those requirements well, however getting the average enthusiast to step outside his comfort zone and try them is a whole different ballgame.

 

[Native_bon]

Call it whatever you want, it's a matter of giving people an idea of what a speaker does in terms of how it sounds or close to.

I make my rules as regarding hifi. You only have to go for a demo and see how massive in taste and presentation a product can be. Sometimes even demo'd with the same hifi sets used in reviews.

I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying.

How can you evaluate what "a speaker does" if you have no idea of what it should sound like? The only suggestion I have to address this is "acoustic music" test mentioned above.

Leaving that aside, we all make our own rules about hi-fi, that is what our "preconceptions and expectations" are. We choose what sounds right to us, which is exactly as I have said.

The fun really starts when the enthusiast discovers that the system he has chosen after weeks of reading reviews and trawling forums does not remotely sound like what he expected. It really does not work for him yet it has everything that he wants, the bling, the branding, the great reviews, everything but the sound that he wants.

My last post was for BigH. (Asking what do call HIFI) I think you getting a bit carried away. I suppose i should have quoted him. *biggrin*

I though you were saying something I found interesting but wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at.

Apologies if my attempt at clarification came across more as an interrogation than was meant.

To answer the question aimed at bigH, my definition of hi-fi is a system that tries, within it's size and price constraints, to reproduce a musical event exactly as it happens.

Of course you have to know what that event sounds like in the first place........

Or more realistically know a little about how the instruments sound for real so that you have a reasonable basis for comparison.

Exactly so dave. I listen to unamplified musical instruments all the time, & sometimes you can even get a different sound from the same instrument recorded in different rooms, not to talk of the same instrument recorded in the same room in different locations. One thing I have learnt with music is that, many systems can paint a picture of an instrument or performance in different ways.

My point was reviews can only guide you. Some reviews sound totally out of place when I hear exactly the same system in a demo. My interpretation of the review & or, the presentation of what pulls me into the music may be totally different from who gives the description of the system, & what they look for in jugding the system palatable to their ears.

Reviews are simply another persons opinion, useless.

The only point to reviews being that well reviewed equipment is easier to move on when you discover that it is not all it is cracked up to be.

Real recordings of real instruments are pretty rare, pretty much non existant in the 'pop/rock, world so many entusiasts would simply not understand what we are talking about here, there simply is no reference on which people can make a meaningful evaluation.

Bringing this back on topic, I know from my experience, that even whilst avoiding obvious distortions or frequency response anomalies, speakers can be made to sound more impressive with some kinds of material than with others.

Knowing what is generally required for R&B and hi-hop, it is easy to suggest speakers that can handle those requirements well, however getting the average enthusiast to step outside his comfort zone and try them is a whole different ballgame.

Well think you said all that needs to be said. Hifi is not a one fits all, its more about the listener & his/her taste of music.

 

[lindsayt]

What do you call R&B?

According to this this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums

For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller is pop, rock, R&B.

Goerge Michael's Faith is pop, R&B.

They are both spectacularly well recorded albums that would be fine for testing any system.

A system that playes these albums relatively well has a good chance of playing any genre well.